Climate Change Scam?

on Nov 24, 2009

Excerpt taken from Email - 1254751382.txt

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: CCNet: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds
Date: Mon Oct 5 10:03:02 2009

Tom,
Thanks for trying to clear the air with a few people. Keith is still working on a
response. Having to contact the Russians to get some more site details takes time.
Several things in all this are ludicrous as you point out. Yamal is one site and isn't
in most of the millennial reconstructions. It isn't in MBH, Crowley, Moberg etc. Also
picking trees for a temperature response is not done either.
The other odd thing is that they seem to think that you can reconstruct the last
millennium from a few proxies, yet you can't do this from a few instrumental series for the
last 150 years! Instrumental data are perfect proxies, after all.
[1]http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html
This one is wrong as well. IPCC (1995) didn't use that silly curve that Chris Folland or
Geoff Jenkins put together.
Cheers
Phil
At 02:59 05/10/2009, you wrote:

David,
This is entirely off the record, and I do not want this shared with
anyone. I hope you will respect this. This issue is not my problem,
and I await further developments.
However, Keith Briffa is in the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and I was
Director of CRU for many years so I am quite familiar with Keith and
with his work. I have also done a lots of hands on tree ring work, both
in the field and in developing and applying computer programs for
climate reconstruction from tree rings. On the other hand, I have not
been involved in any of this work since I left CRU in 1993 to move to
NCAR. But I do think I can speak with some modicum of authority.
You say, re dendoclimatologists, "they rely on recent temperature data by which to
*select* recent tree data" (my emphasis). I don't know where you get this idea, but I
can assure you that it is entirely wrong.
Further, I do not know the basis for your claim that "Dendrochonology
is a bankrupt approach". It is one of the few proxy data areas where rigorous
multivariate statistical tools are used and where reconstructions are carefully tested
on independent data.
Finally, the fact that scientists (in any field) do not willingly share their
hard-earned primary data implies that they have something to hide
has no logical basis.
Tom.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
David Schnare wrote:

Tom:

Briffa has already made a preliminary response and he failed to explain his selection
procedure. Further, he refused to give up the data for several years, and was forced to
do so only when he submitted to a journal that demanded data archiving and actually
enforced the practice.

More significantly, Briffa's analysis is irrelevant. Dendrochonology is a bankrupt
approach. They admit that they cannot distiguish causal elements contributing to tree
ring size. Further, they rely on recent temperature data by which to select recent tree
data (excluding other data) and then turn around and claim that the tree ring data
explains the recent temperature data. If you can give a principled and reasoned defense
of Briffa (see the discussion on Watt's website) then go for it. I'd be fascinated, as
would a rather large number of others.

None of this, of course, detracts for the need to do research on geoengineering. David
Schnare
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <mailto:wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>
wrote:
Dear all,
I think it would be wise to let Briffa respond to these
accusations before compounding them with unwarranted
extrapolations.
With regard to the Hockey Stick, it is highly unlikely that
a single site can be very important. M&M have made similar
accusations in the past and they have been shown, in the
peer-reviewed literature, to be ill-founded.
Two recent papers you should read are those in the attached
Word document (first pages only).
Tom.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Eugene I. Gordon wrote:
David:

I concede all of your points but add one other thought. It is my
grandchildren I worry about and I suspect their grand children
will find it exceedingly warm because sunspots will return and
carbon abatement is only a game; It wont happen significantly
in their lifetime AND IT WONT BE ENOUGH IN ANY CASE. HENCE _WE
WILL NEED A GEOENGINEERING SOLUTION_ COME WHAT MAY!
-gene

/Eugene I. Gordon/
/(908) 233 4677/
/euggordon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx/ <[2]http://euggordon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx/>
/[3]www.germgardlighting.com/ <[4]http://www.germgardlighting.com/>

*From:* geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<[5]mailto:geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[mailto:geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<[6]mailto:geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>] *On Behalf Of *David
Schnare
*Sent:* Sunday, October 04, 2009 10:49 AM
*Cc:* Alan White; geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<[7]mailto:geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
*Subject:* [geo] Re: CCNet: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds

Gene:

I've been following this issue closely and this is what I take
away from it:

1) Tree ring-based temperature reconstructions are fraught with
so much uncertainty, they have no value whatever. It is
impossible to tease out the relative contributions of rainfall,
nutrients, temperature and access to sunlight. Indeed a single
tree can, and apparently has, skewed the entire 20th century
temperature reconstruction.

2) The IPCC peer review process is fundamentally flawed if a
lead author is able to both disregard and ignore criticisms of
his own work, where that work is the critical core of the
chapter. It not only destroys the credibility of the core
assumptions and data, it destroys the credibility of the larger
work - in this case, the IPCC summary report and the underlying
technical reports. It also destroys the utility and credibility
of the modeling efforts that use assumptions on the relationship
of CO2 to temperature that are based on Britta's work, which is,
of course, the majority of such analyses.

As Corcoran points out, "the IPCC has depended on 1) computer
models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range temperature
forecasting and 4) communication. None of these efforts are
sitting on firm ground."

Nonetheless, and even if the UNEP thinks it appropriate to rely
on Wikipedia as their scientific source of choice, greenhouse
gases may (at an ever diminishing probability) cause a
significant increase in global temperature. Thus, research,
including field trials, on the leading geoengineering techniques
are appropriate as a backstop in case our children find out that
the current alarmism is justified.

David Schnare
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Eugene I. Gordon
<euggordon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <[8]mailto:euggordon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<[9]mailto:euggordon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <mailto:euggordon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>>
wrote:
Alan:

Thanks for the extensive and detailed e-mail. This is terrible
but not surprising. Obviously I do not know what gives with
these guys. However, I have my own suspicions and hypothesis. I
dont think they are scientifically inadequate or stupid. I
think they are dishonest and members of a club that has much to
gain by practicing and perpetuating global warming scare
tactics. That is not to say that global warming is not occurring
to some extent since it would be even without CO2 emissions. The
CO2 emissions only accelerate the warming and there are other
factors controlling climate. As a result, the entire process may
be going slower than the powers that be would like. Hence, (I
postulate) the global warming contingent has substantial
motivation to be dishonest or seriously biased, and to be loyal
to their equally dishonest club members. Among the motivations
are increased and continued grant funding, university
advancement, job advancement, profits and payoffs from carbon
control advocates such as Gore, being in the limelight, and
other motivating factors I am too inexperienced to identify.

Alan, this is nothing new. You and I experienced similar
behavior from some of our colleagues down the hall, the Bell
Labs research people, in the good old days. Humans are hardly
perfect creations. I am never surprised at what they can do. _I
am perpetually grateful for those who are honest and fair and
thankfully there is a goodly share of those._

-gene

2

Artysim

on Nov 24, 2009

Hi Tova,

1) Let's keep in mind that these are the e-mails from one university, and that the national science academies of virtually every nation on the planet have signed on to man made climate change, based on thousands of studies from across the planet.

2) What's to say that all of the e-mails are authentic?

3) If what this one university has found "proves" man-made climate change is bogus, why didn't anybody else twig on to it? If they did, then that would imply a truly global conspiracy, hello tin foil hatters.

Besides, it doesn't change this:

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/11/23/greenhouse-gases-023.html

Since 1750 carbon dioxide has increased by 38 percent, methane 157 percent and other gases too.

-Regardless- of whether or not the increased amounts of greenhouse gases are from human activity or not, the continual increase of these gases spells a world of hurt not just for us but the entire planet.

The sea level will rise and displace tens of millions. Glaciers that currently provide the sources for major aquifers and rivers will dry up, depriving tens of millions more people from fresh water and arable land. Multiple ecosystems will be disrupted or outright abolished and a significant portion of the planet will become desert.

So, it is in our best interest to do everything we can to try and limit the above from happening. In fact, as the only truly sentient, tool-using species on the planet, it is our duty!

3

Nitro Cruiser

on Nov 24, 2009

Tova, anything that puts this subject under scrutiny is a good thing. Rest assured if the information was opposite of what it does say, the Eco-fundamentalists would be holding it up as proof positive of global warming. IMO if there is one institution trying to game the system for "research" money then there are more in the shadows. Too bad if they miss out on their big pay day.

4

stubbyfinger

on Nov 24, 2009

What’s ironic is anyone whom understands science would be more upset and skeptical of their conclusions if these emails showed the exact opposite attitudes towards the data and the methods used to gather that data than if than if they came off as absolutely confident of theirs and others methods.

This is how science works ladies and gents, individuals are imperfect and have agenda’s. The pier review process, a healthy internal skepticism of others work and the clash of ego’s is what keeps the process honest. There’s no other method of inquiry available to us that has any hope of getting as close to the truth as the scientific method, embrace it with a healthy skepticism but don’t expect your skepticism to have any weight unless you’ve done your homework.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-do-the-hacked-CRU-emails-tell-us.html

Here's a 3 part video on the nature of science.

5

stubbyfinger

on Nov 24, 2009

Error embedding video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A58X73GnzE

6

CharlesCS

on Nov 24, 2009

Hey Arty,

One could also say the folllowing:

1) Let's keep in mind that these are the e-mails from one university, and that the national science academies of virtually every nation on the planet have signed on to man made climate change, based on thousands of studies from across the planet.

That could also hiding the truth.

2) What's to say that all of the e-mails are authentic?

What's to say they are not?

3) If what this one university has found "proves" man-made climate change is bogus, why didn't anybody else twig on to it? If they did, then that would imply a truly global conspiracy, hello tin foil hatters.

Because it would be more beneficial to hide the truth? Global Conspiracy? The world has the US as the main cause of "climate change" why wouldn't they have a global conspiracy against us? It would be the smart thing to do.

-Regardless- of whether or not the increased amounts of greenhouse gases are from human activity or not, the continual increase of these gases spells a world of hurt not just for us but the entire planet.

And that's the trick right there. You also need to keep in mind that opposition to man-made climate change is not about not wanting to give up our SUV's and big screen TV's, it's about making major changes that will cost the average person too much, that will require more taxes in a short amount of time, that will make one industry fall and leave millions without jobs, etc. Basically, the changes will be big, too fast, costly and will do more harm to our society than good for something that may not stop climate change in the end.

Most people are all for cars that produce less or no emmisions, but we don't want to pay twice as much for it. Most people would rather use solar power, but the tech is still in it's early stages. Most people would rather eat healthy, but we don't want to be told what we can and can't eat. Most people woul change their electronics for more energy efficient ones, we just don't want to be limited to what we can buy, pay up the yingyang for it and also be taxed for all of it.

If we are saving the world, why does someone have to benefit financially from it in the process?

7

Tova7

on Nov 24, 2009

I've read these emails for several hours. I am NOT a scientist. But here are a few observations:

1. The academics seem more concerned with their standing in the research journals than in the actual science. Some seem more offended with other reputable scientists disagreeing with them than the science behind the disagreement. (They are quick to disparage a journal as being "the bottom of the list" of peer reviewed journals that contradict their assertions. And if you read from April 2002, you can see things get rather heated when it gets more personal.)

2. I don't ever care to know more about tree ring analysis and how it correlates to global warming. Heh.

3. Believing man is not responsible for global warming is the Sarah Palin problem in the scientific community. The self proclaimed academics, giving interviews on NPR and to the New York Times scoff at the Sarah notion and do all they can to attack it while saying it is ridiculous and bad science (and throwing out any evidence to the contrary).

The Sarah supporters are growing in number and just keep coming back with their own science.

(The main difference seems to be Methodology...discussed below)

4. In the end, what I took from these emails is this: human activity increases carbon in the atmosphere. But there is science to show that it is not enough to affect our climate (Method 1: regressive analysis of two past ice ages) and science to show it is (Method 2: more recent climate research over the last 100 years).

5. After reading this, my main concern isn't carbon, but what the sun will do starting in 2012 going until 2042. Heh. Just like the movie, the solar activity is scheduled to cycle back up, and if it hits projected levels, then we'll see drastic climate change whether we're driving SUVs or a world full of Prius. Both camps agree on that.

If not, then the debate will rage on....I am sure.

8

Tova7

on Nov 24, 2009

One more thing. Unless I missed something (and it is possible), this isn't so much a smoking gun as evidence that even in the Scientific community there is not concensus on the question: Are we causing global warming? (Arty, these emails are not just to people within the University, but prominent scientists from all over the world...most involved in summits, seminars, etc about this topic)...

I can understand why proponents of man made climate change wouldn't want these to get out. It essentially shows credible scientists disagreeing about a topic politicians (and some scientists) wanted the public to believe was settled.....for various reasons.

9

Anthony R

on Nov 24, 2009

Tova, haven't you see that picture of a Polar bear clinging to an icecube in the arctic because his habitat is melting away? We are murdering these poor Polar Bears.

10

ParaTed2k

on Nov 24, 2009

I doubt very many of the people downplaying all this would be doing it if the emails were from the other side of the issue...

I wonder how much of the data that is cited by the Man Caused Global Warming side of the issue originated from the sources cited in these Emails. The fact is, no one knows.

GIGO comes to mind here.

11

Adventure-Dude

on Nov 24, 2009

Lord Monckton of the UK proved enough in their court against Gore's documentary on 9 major errors that Gore's peeps couldn't refute hence leading to the banning of this 'documentary' from public schools.

Course Gore never admitted this.

12

Daiwa

on Nov 24, 2009

thousands of studies from across the planet

If what this one university has found "proves" man-made climate change is bogus, why didn't anybody else twig on to it? If they did, then that would imply a truly global conspiracy, hello tin foil hatters.

Where have you been, Arty? You've not noticed that more than a few reputable scientists have 'twigged on to it' - questioned the validity of the anthropogenic argument? As for tin foil hats, I reserve those for people who throw up absurd straw men (truly global conspiracy).

Talk about 'deniers' - another 'Move along, nothing to see here' argument.

13

Daiwa

on Nov 24, 2009

Not all the scientific backing of the AGW movement comes from the CRU & Michael Mann, only the linchpin claims.

14

Tova7

on Nov 24, 2009

Lord Monckton of the UK proved enough in their court against Gore's documentary on 9 major errors that Gore's peeps couldn't refute hence leading to the banning of this 'documentary' from public schools.

I heard something about this, I just don't remember where right off. It certainly was not the MSM.

Tova, haven't you see that picture of a Polar bear clinging to an icecube in the arctic because his habitat is melting away? We are murdering these poor Polar Bears

That picture is hilarious. Thanks.

On a totally inappropriate to the topic note: isn't it titillating to read emails that start with "this is totally off the record ...I wouldn't want it getting around..." hahahaha

Bad. Bad. Bad.

15

Adventure-Dude

on Nov 24, 2009

I heard something about this, I just don't remember where right off. It certainly was not the MSM.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40